Ethics

Suggested Outline for Essay I

[1] Carefully explain the argument for ethical relativism (ER) as formulated by Pojman. On what grounds on does he rejects this theory? Explore the concept of "moral isolationism" as proposed by Mary Midgley and its significance in ethical relativism. Additionally, delve into Midgley's assertion that moral skepticism leads to a program of immoralism. Examine the relativist perspective that argues against criticizing practices of other cultures, and critically evaluate Mary Midgley's stance that any moral framework prohibiting condemnation of brutal and intolerant practices, such as honor killing and female genital mutilation, should be automatically rejected.

Part I: Introduction

Topic Sentence + Introduce the Philosophers + Thesis Statement

Your thesis is who you think is right and why. Do you side with ethical relativism or do you think the objections raised by Pojman and Midgely undermine ethical relativism?

Example: Ethical Relativism (ER) is the view that there are no universally valid moral principles that apply to all societies throughout history. According to this view, we ought to refrain from judging the practices of other cultures, for we have no right to impose our own values on members of other cultures. Louis Pojman and Mary Midgley object to ER. Pojman argues that . . . Midgley argues that . . . In this essay, I argue that both Pojman and Midgely raise serious concerns about ER. I contend that any moral theory that fails to provide a platform from which to condemn brutal and intolerant practices such as honor killing and female genital mutilation should be rejected on its face.

Part II: The Argument for ER

Explain the argument for ER, as formulated by Pojman. What evidence does Benedict marshal in support of the diversity thesis? What evidence does Westermark marshal for the dependency thesis?

Part III: Pojman’s Objections to ER

Explain each of Pojman’s objections, referencing the assigned reading to support your exposition.

Part IV: Midgley’s Objection to ER

Explain Midgley’s notion of moral isolationism. What does she think this view leads to “a program of immoralism”?

Part V: Brutal and Intolerant Practices

Do you think we are justified in condemning brutal and intolerant practices regardless of the countries in which they occur or do you agree with the relativists’ claim that we have no right to impose our own moral standards on members of other cultures.

Part VI: Conclusion

[2] Glaucon argues that the unjust man would be happier because he has fame and fortune. Plato disagrees with Glaucon, arguing that the unjust man would be unhappy because he has sold his soul. On Socrates’ view, the just man would be happier because he has a well-balanced soul. Aristotle agrees with Socrates that the unjust man would not be happy—because fame and fortune are merely instrumental goods. Aristotle disagrees with Socrates that the just man would be happy. Aristotle argues that man is by nature a social animal. We have an inherent need to be productive and to be valued for who and what we are. We cannot self-actualize, to use Maslow’s term, in isolation. Explain Aristotle’s claim that happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. Each of these philosophers give radically different accounts of the good life. What do you think is important in life: fame and fortune (Glaucon), integrity (Plato), or integrity and opportunity (Aristotle). Whose account of the good life do you think is most accurate? Defend your answer.

Part I: Introduction

Topic Sentence + Introduce the Philosophers and their Positions + Thesis Statement

Your thesis statement is who you think is right and why.

Example: What is the nature of the good life? Glaucon, Socrates and Aristotle present contrasting answers to this question. Glaucon argues . . . Socrates argues . . . Aristotle argues . . . In this essay, I will argue that Aristotle is correct—that genuine happiness requires both opportunity and integrity.

Part II: Glaucon’s Argument

Explain Glaucon’s received view of justice and his thought experiment about the perfectly just man and the perfectly unjust man. Why does Glaucon think the unjust man would be happier?

Part III: Socrates’s Reply to Glaucon’s Argument

Explain Socrates account of the soul. Explain Socrates claim that to act unjustly is the feed the beast and the lion, starving the inner man. Why does Socrates think the just man would be happier?

Part IV: Aristotle’s View of the Good Life

Explain Aristotle’s account of virtue and his statement that happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. Why does Aristotle think neither the just man, nor the unjust man would be happier?

Part V: Analysis

In this section, you want to advance reasons for thinking one of these philosophers is right and why the other two are wrong.

Part VI: Conclusion

In your conclusion you might explain how the position you have taken in this essay changes the trajectory of your life.

[3] Critically evaluate the Divine Command Theory (DCT) as formulated by Rachels in light of the Euthyphro dilemma. Do you think the arbitrariness problem is a fatal objection to the divine command theory or do you think the central features of the divine command theory can be salvaged? If so, how?

Part I: Introduction

Topic Sentence + Introduce the Philosophers and their Positions + Thesis Statement

Your thesis statement is who you think is right and why.

Example: The Divine Command Theory (DCT) is the view that “morally right” means “commanded by God and “morally wrong” means “forbidden by God.” The Euthyphro dilemma poses a serious objection to the DCT. In this essay I will argue . . .

Part II: Divine Command Theory

Explain the central tenets of the DCT as formulated by Rachels.

Part III: The Euthyphro Dilemma

Carefully explain both horns of this dilemma.

Part IV: Analysis

Do you think the Euthyphro dilemma is a fatal objection to the DCT or do you think the basic tenets of the theory can be salvaged?

Part V: Conclusion

[4] What are the precepts of the Theory of Natural Law, as developed by Aquinas. As Rachels notes, the official moral teaching the Catholic Church rests on the Theory of Natural Law. Explain Pope Paul IV’s argument against the use of artificial birth control. Do you think procreation and unity are the only legitimate uses for sexual intercourse? Rachels argues that the theory of natural law is open to two serious objections. Explain these objections.

Part I: Introduction

Topic Sentence + Introduce the Philosophers and their Positions + Thesis Statement

Your thesis statement is who you think is right and why.

Example: The Theory of Natural Law (TNL) is the view that . . . As Rachels notes, this theory serves as the basis for the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. Pope Paul IV argues on the basis of the TNL to the conclusion that the use of artificial birth control is morally wrong. In this essay I argue that the naturalistic fallacy as discussed by Rachels undermines the Church’s stance on birth control.

Part II: Theory of Natural Law

Explain the basic tenets TNL as developed by Aquinas, drawing quotes from the assigned reading to support your exposition.

Part III: Pope Paul’s Argument against Artificial Birth Control

Explain this argument, drawing quotes from Pope Paul’s paper to support your exposition.

Part IV: The Naturalistic Fallacy

Explain the is/ought objection as discussed by Rachels. Do you think this objection undermines the TNL and hence, the Church’s position on artificial birth control?

Part V: Conclusion

[3] Compare and contrast Mill and Kant on the trolley problem. Explain each philosopher’s respective approach to moral philosophy, and explain how each would approach the trolley problem. Discuss the core objections to each moral theory. Whose view do you find the most convincing? Defend your position.

Part I: Introduction

Topic Sentence + Introduce the Philosophers and their Positions + Thesis Statement

Your thesis statement is who you think is right and why.

Example: John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant present contrasting views on the nature of morality. As a utilitarian, Mill’s moral philosophy focuses on maximizing happiness for all involved. In contrast, Kant’s moral philosophy is based duty and respecting the inherent moral worth of each human being. The contrast between these two approaches can be seen by analyzing the trolley problem. Grounded in the Greatest Happiness Principle, Mill would argue that the morally correct action would be to pull the lever—it’s better that one should die than five should die. Following the Categorical Imperative, Kant would argue that our duty is to refrain from pulling the lever—Kant thinks we could not universalize killing one person to save five others, for that would sanction murdering a homeless person in order to procure life-saving organs for five others. In this essay, I will argue that . . .

Part II: The Trolley Problem

Explain the trolley problem.

Part III: Utilitarianism

P1: Explain the basic tenets of utilitarianism.

P2: Why would Mill argue that the morally correct action would be to pull the lever?

Part IV: Kantianism

P1: Explain the basic tenets of Kantianism.

P2: Why would Kant argue that we could not universalize the maxim “It’s okay to sacrifice one life to save five others”?

Part V: Analysis

Defend your thesis statement.

Part VI: Conclusion

[4] Rawls and Nozick have radically different theories of justice. Rawls analyzes justice in terms of fairness. On Rawls's view, the job of government is to make things more equitable. Nozick thinks the job of government is to uphold liberty. These are contrasting views because in order to impose artificial equality on society, the government must deprive some citizens of their liberty—i.e., the government must tax working Americans to provide goods and services to those who either cannot or will not work. Analyze both positions in light of the short stories by Vonnegut and Hongoltz-Hetling. Who do you think is right, Rawls or Nozick? Defend your answer.

Part I: Introduction

Topic Sentence + Introduce the Philosophers and their Positions + Thesis Statement

Your thesis statement is who you think is right and why.

Example: John Rawls and Robert Nozick present contrasting views on the proper role of the federal government and individual rights. In his Justice as Fairness approach, Rawls’s advocates for distributive justice, the view that . . . The short story “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut shows that federally mandated fairness deprives citizens of their liberty. Robert Nozick agrees with this stance, arguing that it is not the government’s job to serve as “cosmic pie cutter.” Nozick advocates for a minimal state and natural rights. The short story by Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling reveals the shortcomings of a minimal or libertarian state. In this essay, I will argue that . . .

Here you really have three choices:

[1] Rawls is right.

[2] Nozick is right.

[3] Neither is right.

II. Rawls’s Justice as Fairness Position

P1: Explain Rawls’s notion of the veil of ignorance and his two principles of justice. Draw quotes from the reading to support your exposition.

P2: What are the implications of the short story “Harrison Bergeron” for Rawls’s position?

P3: What would the U.S. look like if we implanted Rawls’s philosophy? Are you willing to sacrifice your liberty for the sake of increased equality?

III: Nozick’s Entitlement Theory

P1: Explain Nozick’s criticism of Rawls’s theory of distributive justice.

P2: Explain Nozick’s Entitlement Theory.

P3: What are the implications of the short story “Barbearians at the Gate” for Nozick’s view?

P4: What would the U.S. look like if we implemented Nozick’s philosophy? If a libertarian government can’t solve the problem of nuisance bears, do you really think such a government could solve more complex problems like COVID-19?

Part IV: Analysis

Defend your thesis statement.

Part V. Conclusion